US v. Kevin Lamont Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999572204-2] Originating case number: 4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999666811]. Mailed to: Walker. [15-6503]

Appeal: 15-6503

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted:

August 10, 2015

Decided:

September 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6503

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court’s marginal
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We have reviewed the record

and conclude that Walker’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)”
motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion.

See United

States v. McRae, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4190665 at *5-*6 (4th
Cir. July 13, 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,
531-32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b)
motion from an unauthorized successive habeas corpus motion).
Therefore, we conclude that Walker is not required to obtain a
certificate
order.

of

appealability

to

appeal

the

district

See Mcrae, 2015 WL 4190665, at *5-*6.

court’s

However, in the

absence of prefiling authorization, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motion to expedite the appeal
and affirm the district court’s order.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
2